3. Warrants and Derivative Liabilities

Warrants

There are significant judgments and estimates inherent in the determination of the fair value of the Company’s warrants. These judgments and estimates included the assumptions regarding its future operating performance, the time to completing a liquidity event and the determination of the appropriate valuation methods. If the Company had made different assumptions, the fair value of the warrants could have been significantly different (See Note 2).

Emerald Multi Draw Credit Agreement Warrants

During the six months ended June 30, 2019, the Company issued 5,000,000 fully vested common stock warrants to Emerald Health Sciences, in conjunction with advances under the Credit Agreement discussed below (See Note 4). The warrants are equity classified at issuance and the Company allocated an aggregate of $716,110 of the gross proceeds to the warrants on a relative fair value basis. The proceeds allocated to the warrants were recorded as discounts to each advance and are being amortized over the term of the debt. The warrants vested immediately and had an estimated aggregate fair value of $1,830,573 utilizing the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

2018 Emerald Financing Warrants

In January and February 2018, the Company issued an aggregate of 40,800,000 and 3,400,000 fully vested common stock warrants to Emerald Health Sciences and an accredited investor, respectively, in conjunction with the Emerald Financing discussed below (See Note 5). The Company reviewed the warrants for liability or equity classification under the guidance of ASC 480-10, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, and concluded that these warrants should be classified as liabilities. See additional discussion below, Derivative Liabilities- Emerald Financing Warrant Liability.

Derivative Liabilities

The following tables summarize the activity of derivative liabilities for the periods indicated:

Emerald Multi Draw Credit Agreement Compound Derivative Liability (1)

In connection with the advances under the Credit Agreement (See Note 4), the Company bifurcated a compound derivative liability related to a contingent interest feature and acceleration upon default provision (contingent put option) provided to Emerald Health Sciences. The Company’s estimate of fair value of the compound derivative liability was determined by using a differential cash flows valuation model, wherein the fair value of the underlying debt facility and its conversion right are estimated both with and without the presence of the contingent interest feature, holding all other assumptions constant. The resulting difference between the estimated fair values in both scenarios is the estimated fair value of the compound derivative. The fair value of the underlying debt facility is estimated by calculating the expected cash flows with consideration of the estimated probability of a change in control transaction, defined as an event of default by the agreement, and applying the expected default interest rate from the date of such default through maturity. The expected cash flows are then discounted back to the reporting date using a benchmark market yield. The conversion right component of the compound derivative is measured using a standard Black-Scholes model for each payment period. Because Emerald Health Sciences would forgo the contingent interest if the contingent put option was exercised upon an event of default, the value ascribed to the contingent put option within the compound derivative is de minimis.

Emerald Financing Warrant Liability (2)

In January and February 2018, the Company issued 44,200,000 warrants to purchase common stock in conjunction with the Emerald Financing discussed above. The warrants vest immediately and have an exercise price of $0.10 per share with a term of five years and are exercisable in cash or through a cashless exercise provision. The warrants contain an anti-dilution protection feature provided to the investors if the Company subsequently issues or sells any shares of common stock, stock options, or convertible securities at a price less than the exercise price of $0.10. The exercise price is automatically adjusted down to the price of the instrument being issued. In addition, the warrants contain a contingent put option if the Company undergoes a subsequent financing that results in a change in control. The warrant holders also have the right to participate in subsequent financing transactions on an as-if converted basis.

The Company reviewed the warrants for liability or equity classification under the guidance of ASC 480-10, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, and concluded that the warrants should be classified as a liability and re-measured to fair value at the end of each reporting period. The Company also reviewed the warrants under ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging/Contracts in Entity’s Own Equity, and determined that the warrants also meet the definition of a derivative. With the assistance of a third-party valuation specialist, the Company valued the warrant liabilities utilizing the Monte Carlo valuation method pursuant to the accounting guidance of ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements. On the closing dates, the Company estimated that the fair value of the warrants issued on January 19, 2018 and February 16, 2018 was $4,700,000 and $5,700,000, respectively.

The warrant liabilities have been valued using Monte Carlo simulations conducted at the closing dates of January 19, 2018 and February 16, 2018 and at the balance sheet dates using the following assumptions:

Because fair value assigned to the warrants exceeded the proceeds received in the Emerald Financing, none of the consideration was allocated to common stock and the Company recorded an adjustment for the difference between the fair value of the warrant liabilities and the total proceeds received to other expense in the Condensed Consolidated Statements Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the six months ended June 30, 2018 as follows:

In addition, because the aggregate proceeds were allocated to the fair value of the Emerald Financing warrant liability, issuance costs totaling $137,192 were charged to other expense during the six months ended June 30, 2018.

Series B Warrant Liability (3)

In conjunction with the Redeemable Convertible Series B Preferred Stock financing, the Company issued the 2015 Series B Financing Warrants originally exercisable at a price of $1.15 per share. The warrants are exercisable in cash or through a cashless exercise provision and contain certain cash redemption rights. The Series B warrants also had a “down-round” protection feature if the Company subsequently issued or sold any shares of common stock, stock options, or convertible securities at a price less than the current exercise price. The down round provision was triggered and automatically adjusted down to $0.10 on December 28, 2017, after the Company entered into the Convertible Promissory Note (See Note 4) and again to $0.00 on January 19, 2018, as a result of the Emerald Financing (See Note 5). The strike price for these warrants is now permanently reset. However, because the remaining warrant holders still have certain cash redemption rights upon the occurrence of certain fundamental transactions, as defined in the Series B warrant agreements, the warrants continue to require liability classification. Subsequent to the repricing that occurred as a result of the Emerald Financing, the warrants have been valued using a Black Scholes Merton Option Pricing Model.

The Company reviewed the classification of the warrants as liabilities or equity under the guidance of ASC 480-10, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, and concluded that the Series B warrants should be classified as a liability. The Company then applied the fair value allocation methodology for allocating the proceeds of $5,000,000 received from the Series B financing between the conversion liability and the warrants with the residual amount being allocated to the Series B Preferred Stock.

To compute the fair value of the warrants, the Company utilized the following assumptions in the Black Scholes Merton Option Pricing Model for the periods indicated:

Emerald Convertible Promissory Note Conversion Liability (4)

In connection with the Convertible Promissory Note (See Note 4), the Company bifurcated a conversion liability related to an embedded conversion feature with a down-round protection provision. The Company valued the conversion liability pursuant to the accounting guidance of ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements, as of the financing date of each closing utilizing the Black Scholes valuation model and the following assumptions:

The fair values of the conversion liabilities on December 28, 2017 and January 19, 2018 were $265,000 and $360,000, respectively. The change in value related to the conversion liability at December 31, 2017 was deemed immaterial due to no substantial change in the assumptions from issuance until year end. In connection with the Emerald Financing discussed in Note 5 below, the Convertible Promissory Note was converted, and the conversion liability was extinguished with the debt.

Series B Preferred Stock Conversion Liability (5)